Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We need a government that works

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.


That’s precisely why the first agenda item for every politician who wins in November ought to be basic government work. For Congress, it’s time to get serious about regulating artificial intelligence. A series of performative hearings in which the celebrities of AI, such as Sam Altman, made flashy appearances on Capitol Hill have yet to generate meaningful legislation. The AI Policy Roadmap recently released by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and three other senators did little to assuage concerns that Congress is happy to let states lead on AI governance.

A handful of small bills might address specific AI issues, but — absent passage of comprehensive legislation — the public is right to question if lawmakers are taking their part of the deal seriously.

For the president, the relative tranquility of the present is the proper time to prepare for future, inevitable emergencies. The federal government’s response to Covid-19 was far from perfect. From the initial confusion over who should wear a mask and when, to prolonged and troubling efforts to quash debate over the proper response, there is tremendous room for improvement.

The nature of our interconnected and global world means that another crisis will unfortunately emerge sooner than later. Imagine the good that would come about from the president overseeing massive emergency drills in preparation of threats like the deployment of a bioweapon. Picture how much smoother the Covie response would have been if the American people had preexisting stores of emergency supplies. These efforts are flashy but they are what’s required by an effective government.

For the courts, the integration of AI into our legal system should not be left to chance. State and federal courts alike have clogged dockets and insufficient support for individuals who cannot afford a lawyer but also cannot afford to lose whatever claim brought them before the court. AI will not and cannot entirely solve those issues, but the technology should be used to the greatest extent possible to help those who too commonly find that our legal system fails to provide the justice it promises.

None of these initiatives are partisan. And all of them go to the purpose of the government: solving problems. There’s a long list of similar, basic projects that would go a long way toward making the government more effective and efficient. The longer this grows, the greater the odds of (even more) discontent and distrust. That’s why candidates across the spectrum should focus less on short-term, shiny projects and much more on what will make American lives easier both now and for decades to come.

The latter kind of project won’t get headlines on Fox or MSNBC, but it will keep the wheels of government turning, which is no small feat given decades of rust.


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less